He wont. I mentioned way early in this thread that trading managed accounts to create returns superior to an index fund was a service trading offers and he chose to ignore it. This whole thread is based on circular logic. "oh gee whiz......trading offers nothing to society....oh gosh....your taking money out of someone else pocket....whine whine sniffle sniffle...BTW poker is ok" effin joke....
In all fairness he didn't say that poker was OK (unless you use the winnings for good I guess). But I am wondering why he has discounted the benefits trading provides for the investing public at-large. He has yet to explain.
You can't escape zero-sum no matter how you shuffle the money around in a market, nor who's it is, nor who is doing the trading. There's nothing circular about that. That's like saying if someone stakes me and I win them money in the poker game, I am providing them with a service. Sure, and I've also provided someone else with an equal and opposite disservice. You might try reading what I wrote if you want to refute it.
The general public typically buys and holds, or trades infrequently enough that they don't particularly need liquidity nor low commissions. If you take the conventional wisdom of the day, the public should be buying and holding an index for decades. Trading facilitates other traders, just like you have to have other poker players to get the game going. But I find that to be circular to claim that that is a "service."
I'm not trolling. If someone can specifically refute something I've said, please do so. I'm no expert on markets and I could be wrong in the way I'm viewing them as basically a big poker game. But you aren't going to convince me of that by putting up a bunch of goofy smilies.